On May 10, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On May 10, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
Also, does apache have an appropriately licensed copy of one or
both portlet xsds?
Not that I'm aware of.
However, why would we need them as we're not distributing them
either?
why not :-) ?
In geronimo IIRC we ended up typing up the schemas without any
comments. This was unpleasant.... if there's a real copy we can
have in svn that would be great.
It might be useful I guess, but the porlet specs (pdf) already
contains them verbatim too.
Why would we need to "type up" these schema's?
At best sun probably provides cddl schemas. There has been some
argument about what license would apply to the result of running
xmlbeans or jaxb code generation on a cddl schema; Craig Russell
thinks it ought to be cddl.
Ugh, you're kidding me, right?
I don't recall anyone agreeing with him.
Are you saying the code generated by jaxb from the xsd "inherit" the
license from the xsd(s) itself?
I used the jaxb compiler initially to generated skeleton code based
on the xsd, but it turned out so crappy I rewrote at least 90% of it
by hand... Only real "left-over" bits I kept are the generated
javadoc headers in the sources as documentation.
See for example:
https://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/portals/pluto/trunk/pluto-container/src/main/java/org/apache/pluto/container/om/portlet/impl/PortletAppType.java
In order to avoid any discussion of this having an apache licensed
copy of the parts of the schema that don't affect code generation
is valuable for anyone who wants to generate such code. As far as
we've been able to figure out, if we type up the schema without any
of the sun documentation annotations the result can be apache
licensed.
Jeez, how far does can this licensing madness go?
I have no idea :-)
Does that mean if I simply delete the generated javadoc (based on
those documentation annotations) from the code, we're fine just as
well? If so, I'm happy to do so right up... although I think its
kind of nuts.
I might be overreacting to my unreliable memories. Thinking back.....
I believe that when we typed up the ee schemas sun had not yet made
them available under cddl. I believe that the final consensus on
legal-discuss is that a few cddl schemas that are not expected to be
modified can be checked into apache svn and then we can generate code
from them that is apache licensed. So, your hand-modified jaxb code
would certainly be fine.
If we can find copies of the schemas that are clearly cddl licensed I
think it would be a good idea to get them into svn in an appropriate
location. At least for ee stuff it can be very handy for users to
include the schemas for reference.
thanks
david jencks
Regards,
Ate
thanks
david jencks
